But if we want to compare being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch vs. just being a Cardinal, then I'd say that the latter is a huge step down in either case. (There's a reason that we have 21 times as many Cardinals as we do Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.)

What are the pros of being a major archbishop instead of a cardinal?

You never have to worry about wearing white for the rest of your life.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

But if we want to compare being a Major Archbishop or Patriarch vs. just being a Cardinal, then I'd say that the latter is a huge step down in either case. (There's a reason that we have 21 times as many Cardinals as we do Major Archbishops and Patriarchs.)

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists. Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

If everybody in Slovakia who "became" communist during the fifty plus years of Russian occupation were barred from the Greek Catholic church, there would be a whole lot fewer Greek Catholics there today if my grandparents' two villages were any indication of what really went on there -religious propaganda aside. (I am an equal opportunity cynic as for every Greek Catholic piece of mythic propaganda out there, an equally ridiculous Orthodox counterpart exists as well.)

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists. Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

I didn't say that. Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist. But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists. Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

I didn't say that. Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist. But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.

Well, I am not one of those people. But you did say that, even if you didn't mean to.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I used to think that the Orthodox would be great allies in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past, but my views on that have changed, because many Orthodox seem more intent on safeguarding their own little fiefdoms.

I think the Orthodox can be and often are guilty of preferring their "little fiefdoms", but I don't think that explains everything here. What you describe as the traditional view and practice of the Melkite Church is not how many, if not all, the other Eastern Catholic Churches operate. And I don't think that can all be blamed on enforced or willful Latinization.

In India, for example, the Syro-Malankara Church was only recently elevated from a Metropolitan Church to a Major Archbishopric. It wasn't long after this elevation that the Major Archbishops began calling themselves Catholicoi, usurping the title "Malankara Metropolitan", "Successor to the Throne of St Thomas", etc., all of which are Orthodox titles. When the Malankara Orthodox Church lodged an official "complaint" with Rome on the matter, the response was that the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches does not recognize the title Catholicos (the office with equivalent powers is Patriarch, and the incumbent does not possess patriarchal authority), and so the Major Archbishop is just a Major Archbishop according to the law the Malankara Catholics recognize as their own, any usage to the contrary being a violation of the law. Now, there's a complicated history regarding why they did this and why it's so contentious, but they continue to do it, even after receiving the Cardinal's hat (which I'd consider a promotion for someone not a patriarch). Are they "freedom fighters" waging war against Roman hegemony? Hardly. As "Orthodox" as their liturgical life is, they've got plenty of heartily embraced Latinizations. Are they fully obedient and subservient to Rome? No, because they know they can get away with certain things and Rome will "have their back" privately, even if they issue something resembling a "public rebuke". They do their own thing, to be sure, but it is neither "Catholic" nor "Orthodox".

Perhaps Melkites are more consistent, I don't know. But I know that the Syro-Malankara "experience" is not unusual among Eastern Catholics. How could we, as Orthodox, ally ourselves with the Eastern Catholics in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past when it is often the Eastern Catholics themselves who benefit from the current status quo and use it to their advantage when convenient? You can't have it both ways.

Deacon Phil,

There are only two differences in Canon Law between patriarch and major archbishop is a patriarch is immediately enthroned upon election by his synod, a major archbishop must await for confirmation by the Pope before enthronement. The other difference is if named cardinal, patriarchs enter the order of bishops and use the title of their see, major archbishops enter the order of presbyters and take the title of their Church's representational parish in Rome.

While it is true the CCEO does not mention the title catholicos, the Armenian and Chaldean Catholic primates have traditionally used the double title of patriarch-catholicos. Also a motu propio issued in 1969 states:30. With regard to the dress and titles of Cardinals and Patriarchs of the Oriental Rite, the traditional usages of those Rites shall be followed.

All laws that apply to patriarchs also apply to major archbishops. Catholic usage has equated catholicos with patirach and major archbishop. Once promoted to major archbishop, the Malankara Catholic metropolitan saw it as natural to assume the title of catholicos as a traditional usage.

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists. Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

I didn't say that. Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist. But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.

Yes, you did. You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I deny the fact cardinal is a lower position than a patriarch. From what I've read by some EC poster here (Dc Lance?) cardinals have precedence over patriarchs on liturgy.

I can infact confirm the opposite. Primates of sui iuris Churches, be they patriarch, major archbishop, or metropolitan, are always accorded first place in Rome before the cardinals.

Not always. Up until recently, a cardinal took precedence over a patriarch in his own patriarchate.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists. Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

I didn't say that. Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist. But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.

Perhaps, the Orthodox Churches, by and large ( big mouthed White Russian aristocratic exiles excepted of course, for quite transparent reasons) didn't necessarily equate joining the Communist parties with apostasy. i know for sure this was the case. Probably Rome did, but their rules do not concern us.

While it is true the CCEO does not mention the title catholicos, the Armenian and Chaldean Catholic primates have traditionally used the double title of patriarch-catholicos. Also a motu propio issued in 1969 states:30. With regard to the dress and titles of Cardinals and Patriarchs of the Oriental Rite, the traditional usages of those Rites shall be followed.

All laws that apply to patriarchs also apply to major archbishops. Catholic usage has equated catholicos with patirach and major archbishop. Once promoted to major archbishop, the Malankara Catholic metropolitan saw it as natural to assume the title of catholicos as a traditional usage.

Thanks, Dn Lance.

To be very precise, the "traditional" usage of the Church in India for its primate is "Metropolitan (and Gate of All India)" or "Metropolitan of Malankara", with other bishops technically being his suffragans. When the Orthodox Church in India split into autocephalous and non-autocephalous jurisdictions, the former assumed/was given the title of Catholicos of the East, the title of the Orthodox primate of the Church of the East, based in Persia (another Thomasine Church); the title had fallen into disuse since the Persian Church was basically "Nestorian" and not Orthodox. The Catholicos was the head of the entire Orthodox Church of the East, Persian and Indian, while the Metropolitan was the local primate of the Indian Church. Originally these were two distinct offices held by two different bishops, but eventually both titles were vested in one bishop (though it could, theoretically, be separated again). To my knowledge, the non-autocephalous jurisdiction never had Catholicoi until the 1970's when, after a reunion of twelve or so years, the schism resumed, and the Patriarch of Antioch gave the title to one of their bishops. Though at first the title of their primate was also "Catholicos of the East", the current incumbent is officially styled "Catholicos of India", and does not claim the office of "Metropolitan of Malankara" or "Successor of St Thomas"--only the autocephalous primate does so.

In light of this, it's not really a "traditional usage" of the Indian Church to refer to the head of the Church there as Catholicos, but only as Metropolitan. The Catholicos is really the head of the Orthodox Church of the East, the heir of which neither the "Jacobite Church" in India nor the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church claim to be. From this perspective, it doesn't really make sense for the Major Archbishop to claim the title Catholicos, even if they don't claim explicitly the throne of the East (which, to their credit, they don't): technically, it's an innovation. It makes more sense, IMO, when seen against the background of the sheep-stealing that the Malankara Catholics are prone to doing.

This is confirmed by the other title the Major Archbishop has assumed: "Successor of the Apostolic See of St Thomas". Though St Thomas ordained bishops and priests during his missionary activities in India, the real "lineage" that this title is traced from is the Catholicosate of the East, also founded by St Thomas. Unless I'm mistaken, "Successor of St Thomas" only really entered India with the Catholicosate (of the autocephalous Church), and was thus a matter of contention between Antioch and India. Since the Major Archbishop is not the Catholicos "of the East", "Successor of the Apostolic See of St Thomas" doesn't make much sense either: I don't believe the Metropolitans of Malankara used such a title. So again, it doesn't really make sense (to my knowledge, no other Eastern Catholic primate claims to be the successor of a particular apostle, even if his "Orthodox" counterpart does, though you may correct me on that).

The only title the Major Archbishop could assume with any sort of historical tradition behind it is "Metropolitan of Malankara", and he has. He's the only primate of any Church in India to claim that title other than ours (and it was from our Church that Mar Ivanios broke away). It's a gutsy move, but it's not like there's a major push to return to traditional, Orthodox practice at all levels in Malankara Catholicism. There's still self-imposed mandatory celibacy, Latinizations like the use of unleavened bread, mandatory introduction of Western devotions, religious orders, etc. Why is it that, at the level of primatial administration, they are so eager to "be Orthodox" but at other levels they are happy to be a hybrid? I'm sorry to say it, but it's all part of the sheep-stealing IMO. They see the internal squabbles between the Orthodox and take advantage of the situation to attract people to their parishes. Moreover, their association with Rome gives them more influence than they'd normally have with their numbers, as they have access to resources we don't, and are not afraid to use them. They use those resources and connections to do a lot of good work, mind you, so it's not like I don't support them in the good they do (because they have their act together and we're busy shooting ourselves in what remains of our feet). But when Rome tells us that the "Uniate" model (as opposed to Eastern Catholicism) is a thing of the past, and then the Malankara Catholics go off "Uniating", when Rome tells us the Major Archbishop is just a major archbishop and does not have the titles he says he has because they don't exist in canon law, but lets the Major Archbishop continue claiming them, it just seems like a lot of duplicity.

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists. Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

I didn't say that. Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist. But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.

Yes, you did. You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

I was reponding to Punch's statement that by uniting with Rome, Greek Catholics apostasized. Christianity has traditonally viewed apostasy as denying Christ, not the acceptance of heresy or schism. I then contrasted that with the actual apostasy of many Orthodox that allowed communism. Catholics did the same in France during their revolution. And I am not speaking of those that gave nominal assent to save their hides but those like Stalin that turned their backs on Christ and persecuted his Church.

While it is true the CCEO does not mention the title catholicos, the Armenian and Chaldean Catholic primates have traditionally used the double title of patriarch-catholicos. Also a motu propio issued in 1969 states:30. With regard to the dress and titles of Cardinals and Patriarchs of the Oriental Rite, the traditional usages of those Rites shall be followed.

All laws that apply to patriarchs also apply to major archbishops. Catholic usage has equated catholicos with patirach and major archbishop. Once promoted to major archbishop, the Malankara Catholic metropolitan saw it as natural to assume the title of catholicos as a traditional usage.

Thanks, Dn Lance.

To be very precise, the "traditional" usage of the Church in India for its primate is "Metropolitan (and Gate of All India)" or "Metropolitan of Malankara", with other bishops technically being his suffragans. When the Orthodox Church in India split into autocephalous and non-autocephalous jurisdictions, the former assumed/was given the title of Catholicos of the East, the title of the Orthodox primate of the Church of the East, based in Persia (another Thomasine Church); the title had fallen into disuse since the Persian Church was basically "Nestorian" and not Orthodox. The Catholicos was the head of the entire Orthodox Church of the East, Persian and Indian, while the Metropolitan was the local primate of the Indian Church. Originally these were two distinct offices held by two different bishops, but eventually both titles were vested in one bishop (though it could, theoretically, be separated again). To my knowledge, the non-autocephalous jurisdiction never had Catholicoi until the 1970's when, after a reunion of twelve or so years, the schism resumed, and the Patriarch of Antioch gave the title to one of their bishops. Though at first the title of their primate was also "Catholicos of the East", the current incumbent is officially styled "Catholicos of India", and does not claim the office of "Metropolitan of Malankara" or "Successor of St Thomas"--only the autocephalous primate does so.

In light of this, it's not really a "traditional usage" of the Indian Church to refer to the head of the Church there as Catholicos, but only as Metropolitan. The Catholicos is really the head of the Orthodox Church of the East, the heir of which neither the "Jacobite Church" in India nor the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church claim to be. From this perspective, it doesn't really make sense for the Major Archbishop to claim the title Catholicos, even if they don't claim explicitly the throne of the East (which, to their credit, they don't): technically, it's an innovation. It makes more sense, IMO, when seen against the background of the sheep-stealing that the Malankara Catholics are prone to doing.

This is confirmed by the other title the Major Archbishop has assumed: "Successor of the Apostolic See of St Thomas". Though St Thomas ordained bishops and priests during his missionary activities in India, the real "lineage" that this title is traced from is the Catholicosate of the East, also founded by St Thomas. Unless I'm mistaken, "Successor of St Thomas" only really entered India with the Catholicosate (of the autocephalous Church), and was thus a matter of contention between Antioch and India. Since the Major Archbishop is not the Catholicos "of the East", "Successor of the Apostolic See of St Thomas" doesn't make much sense either: I don't believe the Metropolitans of Malankara used such a title. So again, it doesn't really make sense (to my knowledge, no other Eastern Catholic primate claims to be the successor of a particular apostle, even if his "Orthodox" counterpart does, though you may correct me on that).

The only title the Major Archbishop could assume with any sort of historical tradition behind it is "Metropolitan of Malankara", and he has. He's the only primate of any Church in India to claim that title other than ours (and it was from our Church that Mar Ivanios broke away). It's a gutsy move, but it's not like there's a major push to return to traditional, Orthodox practice at all levels in Malankara Catholicism. There's still self-imposed mandatory celibacy, Latinizations like the use of unleavened bread, mandatory introduction of Western devotions, religious orders, etc. Why is it that, at the level of primatial administration, they are so eager to "be Orthodox" but at other levels they are happy to be a hybrid? I'm sorry to say it, but it's all part of the sheep-stealing IMO. They see the internal squabbles between the Orthodox and take advantage of the situation to attract people to their parishes. Moreover, their association with Rome gives them more influence than they'd normally have with their numbers, as they have access to resources we don't, and are not afraid to use them. They use those resources and connections to do a lot of good work, mind you, so it's not like I don't support them in the good they do (because they have their act together and we're busy shooting ourselves in what remains of our feet). But when Rome tells us that the "Uniate" model (as opposed to Eastern Catholicism) is a thing of the past, and then the Malankara Catholics go off "Uniating", when Rome tells us the Major Archbishop is just a major archbishop and does not have the titles he says he has because they don't exist in canon law, but lets the Major Archbishop continue claiming them, it just seems like a lot of duplicity.

Anyway, the more the merrier, I guess.

Deacon Phil,

I think I was unclear. I meant traditional because the Chaldean and Armenian Catholic patriarchs used it. I am sure equaling prestige with the Malankara Orthodox had something to do with it as well.

The Syro-Malabar Major Archbishop also claims his lineage from St. Thomas.

I do not think it is duplicity on Rome's part as they don't want it going on and sponsor things like CNEWA and Aid to the Church in Need which provide money without strings attached. I think it shows how little control Rome has when an Eastern Catholic Church decides to do what it wants. I am saddened the Malankara Catholics aren't helping their Orthodox brethren without sheep stealing.

Why is it that, at the level of primatial administration, they are so eager to "be Orthodox" but at other levels they are happy to be a hybrid? I'm sorry to say it, but it's all part of the sheep-stealing IMO. They see the internal squabbles between the Orthodox and take advantage of the situation to attract people to their parishes. Moreover, their association with Rome gives them more influence than they'd normally have with their numbers, as they have access to resources we don't, and are not afraid to use them. They use those resources and connections to do a lot of good work, mind you, so it's not like I don't support them in the good they do (because they have their act together and we're busy shooting ourselves in what remains of our feet). But when Rome tells us that the "Uniate" model (as opposed to Eastern Catholicism) is a thing of the past, and then the Malankara Catholics go off "Uniating", when Rome tells us the Major Archbishop is just a major archbishop and does not have the titles he says he has because they don't exist in canon law, but lets the Major Archbishop continue claiming them, it just seems like a lot of duplicity.

Anyway, the more the merrier, I guess.

I wonder if someday we'll see an "Oriental equivalent" of the Balamand Agreement.

I think I was unclear. I meant traditional because the Chaldean and Armenian Catholic patriarchs used it. I am sure equaling prestige with the Malankara Orthodox had something to do with it as well.

The Syro-Malabar Major Archbishop also claims his lineage from St. Thomas.

That's news to me...since when? India is such a mess...

I'll take you at your word that the Chaldean and Armenian Catholics use the title Catholicos as well, although someone ought to give the Roman Curia a heads up about such things. When our chief ecumenical relations bishop penned a complaint to Rome about it when it first happened, his Vatican counterpart is the one who assured him that there was no such thing.

Quote

I do not think it is duplicity on Rome's part as they don't want it going on and sponsor things like CNEWA and Aid to the Church in Need which provide money without strings attached. I think it shows how little control Rome has when an Eastern Catholic Church decides to do what it wants. I am saddened the Malankara Catholics aren't helping their Orthodox brethren without sheep stealing.

It's a very confusing situation, to be sure. On the one hand, Rome claims universal jurisdiction, approves the Code of Canons which the Eastern Churches govern themselves with, etc., etc., but when they "go off on their own", they either can't or won't do anything about it. Personally, I think it's a combination of both, but it matters little.

I appreciate things like CNEWA and ACN in principle, and I think we can do a lot of good together even in India itself among the various Indian Christian communities, if poaching was not involved. Unfortunately, it is, and has been for a long time. My mom can tell stories of people who were Orthodox, Protestant, and even Hindus who, for whatever reason, were not able to get into schools and/or overseas jobs to support their families until the Catholics (Eastern and Roman) got involved. They got them into schools, helped pay for them, got them overseas jobs, arranged for visas and the whole nine...all it required was conversion. Things like that give all Christians a bad name, and are part of the reason why there is a distrust of Churches with "foreign allegiances" among many in India.

That said, it's not like Eastern Catholics and Orthodox in India are always at war with each other. There is a lot of cooperation, especially locally but also beyond that, going on, and people from bishops on down can be and are friendly. But when it's ugly, it's ugly.

I know Rome will not give up the power it has taken to itself voluntarily. It will require that the Eastern Catholic Churches fight for their own rights. I mean we cannot depend on the Orthodox to give us any help because they are too busy trying to undermine our efforts to return to our ancestral traditions. I used to think that the Orthodox would be great allies in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past, but my views on that have changed, because many Orthodox seem more intent on safeguarding their own little fiefdoms.

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that the Eastern Catholic Churches entered into communion with the Roman Catholic Church in order to change how it works and what it believes, and you were going to call on the Orthodox Churches as back-up?

Now I shouldn't speak for you, but you said that over the hundreds of years that Eastern Catholic Churches have been in communion with Rome, the Eastern Catholic Churches have taken up Latinizations? Wouldn't that mean that the plan of the Eastern Catholic Churches has backfired?

But, perhaps I misunderstand you and I'm wrong, and if I am, I'm sorry.

There are only two differences in Canon Law between patriarch and major archbishop is a patriarch is immediately enthroned upon election by his synod, a major archbishop must await for confirmation by the Pope before enthronement. The other difference is if named cardinal, patriarchs enter the order of bishops and use the title of their see, major archbishops enter the order of presbyters and take the title of their Church's representational parish in Rome.

What about ordaining bishops? Necessity of pope's approval for major archbishopric Churches and not for Patriarchates?

I appreciate things like CNEWA and ACN in principle, and I think we can do a lot of good together even in India itself among the various Indian Christian communities, if poaching was not involved. Unfortunately, it is, and has been for a long time. My mom can tell stories of people who were Orthodox, Protestant, and even Hindus who, for whatever reason, were not able to get into schools and/or overseas jobs to support their families until the Catholics (Eastern and Roman) got involved. They got them into schools, helped pay for them, got them overseas jobs, arranged for visas and the whole nine...all it required was conversion. Things like that give all Christians a bad name, and are part of the reason why there is a distrust of Churches with "foreign allegiances" among many in India.

Interesting that you should bring that up. Something that has been on my mind lately (generally, not specifically with regard to OOs) is that there seem to be many people who think that proselytism is only a problem if it's in a "negative" form (e.g. punishing those who do not convert), not if it's in a "positive" form (rewarding those who do convert).

I know Rome will not give up the power it has taken to itself voluntarily. It will require that the Eastern Catholic Churches fight for their own rights. I mean we cannot depend on the Orthodox to give us any help because they are too busy trying to undermine our efforts to return to our ancestral traditions. I used to think that the Orthodox would be great allies in getting Rome to return to the synodal structure of the past, but my views on that have changed, because many Orthodox seem more intent on safeguarding their own little fiefdoms.

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that the Eastern Catholic Churches entered into communion with the Roman Catholic Church in order to change how it works and what it believes, and you were going to call on the Orthodox Churches as back-up?

Perhaps, the Orthodox Churches, by and large ( big mouthed White Russian aristocratic exiles excepted of course, for quite transparent reasons) didn't necessarily equate joining the Communist parties with apostasy. i know for sure this was the case. Probably Rome did, but their rules do not concern us.

Joining the party was something most people did not do out of conviction. One could refuse to join, but that meant giving up on any sort of professional expectations. So pretty much everybody was signed on. Attending compulsory party meetings was the bore of the century according to my folks.

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists. Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

I didn't say that. Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist. But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.

Yes, you did. You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

Indeed, the 1937 Soviet census found that a majority of Soviet citizens were believers.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

There are only two differences in Canon Law between patriarch and major archbishop is a patriarch is immediately enthroned upon election by his synod, a major archbishop must await for confirmation by the Pope before enthronement. The other difference is if named cardinal, patriarchs enter the order of bishops and use the title of their see, major archbishops enter the order of presbyters and take the title of their Church's representational parish in Rome.

What about ordaining bishops? Necessity of pope's approval for major archbishopric Churches and not for Patriarchates?

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists. Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

I didn't say that. Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist. But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.

Perhaps, the Orthodox Churches, by and large ( big mouthed White Russian aristocratic exiles excepted of course, for quite transparent reasons) didn't necessarily equate joining the Communist parties with apostasy. i know for sure this was the case. Probably Rome did, but their rules do not concern us.

In the book "Father Arseny," one of his spiritual children describes himself as a Christian and a Communist. That said, there were anathemas (Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Veniamin of Petrograd) against those who destroyed churches, etc, as well as the "Living Church." It is interesting to note that St. Veniamin was elected metropolitan by the whole city--Red Guards and all. The authorities had to arrest and shoot him secretly to prevent rioting.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists. Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

I didn't say that. Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist. But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.

Yes, you did. You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

I was reponding to Punch's statement that by uniting with Rome, Greek Catholics apostasized. Christianity has traditonally viewed apostasy as denying Christ, not the acceptance of heresy or schism. I then contrasted that with the actual apostasy of many Orthodox that allowed communism. Catholics did the same in France during their revolution. And I am not speaking of those that gave nominal assent to save their hides but those like Stalin that turned their backs on Christ and persecuted his Church.

Maybe in the academic sense they aren't considered apostates, but from the POV of history, heresy and schism were treated more harshly than paganism. Regions which returned to paganism usually got missionaries. Heretics usually got more aggressive forms of persuasion.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists. Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

I didn't say that. Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist. But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.

Yes, you did. You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

I was reponding to Punch's statement that by uniting with Rome, Greek Catholics apostasized. Christianity has traditonally viewed apostasy as denying Christ, not the acceptance of heresy or schism. I then contrasted that with the actual apostasy of many Orthodox that allowed communism. Catholics did the same in France during their revolution. And I am not speaking of those that gave nominal assent to save their hides but those like Stalin that turned their backs on Christ and persecuted his Church.

And which Church would that be?

You connected "continued harrassment" of "Greek Catholics" in Eastern Europe (I guess harrassment of them in Western Europe is a different issue) with "guilt and shame," presumably connected with communism, given the context. Resistance to the "unions" predates the communists by quite a bit. At least since Florence.

Btw, the Latin ordinary telling the Ukrainians to send their married priests back home, is that "continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe"?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists. Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

I didn't say that. Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist. But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.

Yes, you did. You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

I was reponding to Punch's statement that by uniting with Rome, Greek Catholics apostasized. Christianity has traditonally viewed apostasy as denying Christ, not the acceptance of heresy or schism. I then contrasted that with the actual apostasy of many Orthodox that allowed communism. Catholics did the same in France during their revolution. And I am not speaking of those that gave nominal assent to save their hides but those like Stalin that turned their backs on Christ and persecuted his Church.

Maybe in the academic sense they aren't considered apostates, but from the POV of history, heresy and schism were treated more harshly than paganism. Regions which returned to paganism usually got missionaries. Heretics usually got more aggressive forms of persuasion.

Do you mean returning to paganism from Christianity? That's clearly apostasy.

There are only two differences in Canon Law between patriarch and major archbishop is a patriarch is immediately enthroned upon election by his synod, a major archbishop must await for confirmation by the Pope before enthronement. The other difference is if named cardinal, patriarchs enter the order of bishops and use the title of their see, major archbishops enter the order of presbyters and take the title of their Church's representational parish in Rome.

What about ordaining bishops? Necessity of pope's approval for major archbishopric Churches and not for Patriarchates?

No, in both the Synod elects and Patriarch/Major Archbishop ordains.

Canon 181

1. Bishops inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal

Church are nominated to a vacant see or to fulfill another function by canonical election according to the norms of cann.

I guess I should have said, I wonder if someday we'll see a Catholic-OO agreement that officially condemns proselytizing.

Would it make any difference?

At least with regard to the situation in India, the Orthodox don't proselytize among Catholics at all that I'm aware of. There are no programs with which to "entice" potential converts, and in terms of ecumenism, the Orthodox clergy are on the "very friendly to slightly ecumaniacal" end of the spectrum when it comes to Catholics, even if we could make the case that Catholics err in matters of faith and they should "return" to the "real Catholic Church", Orthodoxy. The closest thing to proselytism would be when Catholic girls marry Orthodox guys and have to convert in order to wed, but even that typically doesn't involve much more than going to confession. When the situation is reversed, and an Orthodox girl marries a Catholic guy, the Catholics will attempt to chrismate, and will do so, in spite of their recognition of our sacraments and their belief that Chrismation is unrepeatable, unless specifically instructed otherwise by a higher authority. Why do they do this and other similar things? It's because Indian Catholics have such an elevated view of the necessity for salvation of "subjection" to the Roman Pontiff that they feel they're doing a service to Orthodox by converting them (when they are even conscious of their existence)...they're saving them from hell. The "official position" of the Catholic Church(es) may be one thing, but what the people on the ground do with their faith convictions is quite another.

At the end of the day, I think that what's done under the guise of religion is ultimately nothing more than community politics. No matter what our rites, faith, or jurisdiction, all of us have the same levels of ineptitude, stupidity, and other bad qualities, as well as all the same good qualities. The Roman connection keeps the Eastern Catholics a little more organized and conscious of a "wider perspective", but left to their own devices, they're just as dumb as we are.

There are only two differences in Canon Law between patriarch and major archbishop is a patriarch is immediately enthroned upon election by his synod, a major archbishop must await for confirmation by the Pope before enthronement. The other difference is if named cardinal, patriarchs enter the order of bishops and use the title of their see, major archbishops enter the order of presbyters and take the title of their Church's representational parish in Rome.

What about ordaining bishops? Necessity of pope's approval for major archbishopric Churches and not for Patriarchates?

No, in both the Synod elects and Patriarch/Major Archbishop ordains.

Canon 181

1. Bishops inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church are nominated to a vacant see or to fulfill another function by canonical election according to the norms of cann. 947-957, unless otherwise provided in common law. 2. Other bishops are appointed by the Roman Pontiff without prejudice to cann. 149 and 168.

What is stated in common law concerning patriarchal Churches or patriarchs is understood to be applicable to major archiepiscopal Churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter.

Canon 181 Section 2 is refering to the appointment of bishops outside the canonical territory which references Canon 149.

Canon 149

The synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, fulfilling the norms of the canons on the election of bishops, is to elect at least three candidates for filling the office of eparchial bishop, coadjutor bishop or auxiliary bishop outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church and through the patriarch propose them to the Roman Pontiff for appointment; secrecy is to be observed by all who in any way know the results of the election, even toward the candidates.

I guess I should have said, I wonder if someday we'll see a Catholic-OO agreement that officially condemns proselytizing.

Would it make any difference?

At least with regard to the situation in India, the Orthodox don't proselytize among Catholics at all that I'm aware of. There are no programs with which to "entice" potential converts, and in terms of ecumenism, the Orthodox clergy are on the "very friendly to slightly ecumaniacal" end of the spectrum when it comes to Catholics, even if we could make the case that Catholics err in matters of faith and they should "return" to the "real Catholic Church", Orthodoxy. The closest thing to proselytism would be when Catholic girls marry Orthodox guys and have to convert in order to wed, but even that typically doesn't involve much more than going to confession. When the situation is reversed, and an Orthodox girl marries a Catholic guy, the Catholics will attempt to chrismate, and will do so, in spite of their recognition of our sacraments and their belief that Chrismation is unrepeatable, unless specifically instructed otherwise by a higher authority. Why do they do this and other similar things? It's because Indian Catholics have such an elevated view of the necessity for salvation of "subjection" to the Roman Pontiff that they feel they're doing a service to Orthodox by converting them (when they are even conscious of their existence)...they're saving them from hell. The "official position" of the Catholic Church(es) may be one thing, but what the people on the ground do with their faith convictions is quite another.

At the end of the day, I think that what's done under the guise of religion is ultimately nothing more than community politics. No matter what our rites, faith, or jurisdiction, all of us have the same levels of ineptitude, stupidity, and other bad qualities, as well as all the same good qualities. The Roman connection keeps the Eastern Catholics a little more organized and conscious of a "wider perspective", but left to their own devices, they're just as dumb as we are.

Sorry to hear all that. I never realized how "unecumenical" Catholics in India were.

Could you clarify: in the above, were you speaking specifically about Malankara Catholics, or also about Malabar Catholics?

Could you clarify: in the above, were you speaking specifically about Malankara Catholics, or also about Malabar Catholics?

It's a complicated situation, and so I don't want to make it seem as if all the Catholics in India are devils unleashed by the Babylonian whore. In many ways, there are good relations, which is why it's annoying when these things still happen and are not reined in.

Because the Malankara Catholics have more of a "link" to Orthodoxy (their schism/reunion being less than a century old), their nonsense is what leaps out at me, and what "hits home" with the Orthodox: a lot of things are still within living memory.

The Malabar Catholics eclipse their non-Catholic counterpart and don't really resemble it in any way, and so they're rather independent. My limited experience with them is that they see themselves and operate as Roman Catholics with a different Mass and a separate administration (in common parlance among Orthodox, Roman rite Catholics are "Roman Catholic", Malabar Catholics are "Latin Catholic", and Malankara Catholics are "the Rite"). "Easternizing" is controversial in their community because it's contrasted with "Indianizing": a good portion of their people view their Latinized expression of Church life as "Indian", with "Easternizing" akin to "Persianizing", so at times it's difficult for them to "return to their roots" as Rome prefers. But because they're so big, they have their own identity and do their own thing, and the relations with the Orthodox (I think) are better.

On the other hand, because they're so big, and because "Catholicism" is really their universe, they can be quite ignorant. It was a Malabar Catholic priest who, hearing I was Orthodox, wondered if I was a convert to Greek or Russian Orthodoxy. When I explained I was Indian, he was genuinely surprised and completely unaware that there was such a thing as Orthodoxy in India. Resisting the urge to tell him that we're the Church that's always fighting with ourselves in the newspapers (), I told him that we're the Church that the Malankara Catholics split from. That's when he told me that "Mar Ivanios wanted to go to heaven, that's why he joined the Catholic Church" and "Non-Catholics go to hell because they rebel against Christ's Vicar on earth, the successor of St Peter." Well, I proceeded to tell him how I thought Catholics were heretical for things like papal supremacy, Filioque, etc., etc. He was genuinely shocked that someone could have a negative view of the Catholic faith without being a fire-breathing, Mary-hating Pentecostal. Then there was the Malabar priest who intended on chrismating an Orthodox girl marrying a Catholic boy; I told the girl to tell him she was Orthodox, that the Catholics recognize our sacraments, that chrismation is unrepeatable for Catholics, and so she shouldn't have to convert. When that didn't work, she had to produce documents downloaded from the Vatican website, citations from the Catechism, and a "Knock It Off" letter from the local RC bishop in order to stop it. It makes you laugh at first, but then it's rather sad: if the clergy are like that, what do you do?

These are just my experiences, not something with which to draw definitive conclusions. But I know I'm not the only one who's experienced this stuff.

Perhaps the U word is offensive to the BC because they deep down feel guilty for their apostasy?

Byzantine Catholics never stopped believing in Christ, unlike the many Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox who did actually apostacize and become Communists. Rather I think the continued harassment of Greek Catholics in Eastern Europe by Orthodox is largely due to the guilt and shame they feel.

So no Byzantine Catholics ever became communists? You have proof, I'm sure.

I didn't say that. Nor did I say all Orthodox became communist. But many here and elsewhere refuse to deal with the fact that there was an actual mass apostasy in "Holy" Russia and elsewhere and act as if the communists materialized out of thin air.

Yes, you did. You said "many Russian, Serbian..." but no qualifier on "Byzantine Catholics," implying "all."

Even with mass apostasy and mass murder, Stalin couldn't get the percentage of atheists in the Soviet Union to 50%.

I was reponding to Punch's statement that by uniting with Rome, Greek Catholics apostasized. Christianity has traditonally viewed apostasy as denying Christ, not the acceptance of heresy or schism. I then contrasted that with the actual apostasy of many Orthodox that allowed communism. Catholics did the same in France during their revolution. And I am not speaking of those that gave nominal assent to save their hides but those like Stalin that turned their backs on Christ and persecuted his Church.

Maybe in the academic sense they aren't considered apostates, but from the POV of history, heresy and schism were treated more harshly than paganism. Regions which returned to paganism usually got missionaries. Heretics usually got more aggressive forms of persuasion.

Do you mean returning to paganism from Christianity? That's clearly apostasy.

Yeah. Did I say it wasn't?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Could you clarify: in the above, were you speaking specifically about Malankara Catholics, or also about Malabar Catholics?

It's a complicated situation, and so I don't want to make it seem as if all the Catholics in India are devils unleashed by the Babylonian whore. In many ways, there are good relations, which is why it's annoying when these things still happen and are not reined in.

Because the Malankara Catholics have more of a "link" to Orthodoxy (their schism/reunion being less than a century old), their nonsense is what leaps out at me, and what "hits home" with the Orthodox: a lot of things are still within living memory.

The Malabar Catholics eclipse their non-Catholic counterpart and don't really resemble it in any way, and so they're rather independent. My limited experience with them is that they see themselves and operate as Roman Catholics with a different Mass and a separate administration (in common parlance among Orthodox, Roman rite Catholics are "Roman Catholic", Malabar Catholics are "Latin Catholic", and Malankara Catholics are "the Rite"). "Easternizing" is controversial in their community because it's contrasted with "Indianizing": a good portion of their people view their Latinized expression of Church life as "Indian", with "Easternizing" akin to "Persianizing", so at times it's difficult for them to "return to their roots" as Rome prefers. But because they're so big, they have their own identity and do their own thing, and the relations with the Orthodox (I think) are better.

On the other hand, because they're so big, and because "Catholicism" is really their universe, they can be quite ignorant. It was a Malabar Catholic priest who, hearing I was Orthodox, wondered if I was a convert to Greek or Russian Orthodoxy. When I explained I was Indian, he was genuinely surprised and completely unaware that there was such a thing as Orthodoxy in India. Resisting the urge to tell him that we're the Church that's always fighting with ourselves in the newspapers (), I told him that we're the Church that the Malankara Catholics split from. That's when he told me that "Mar Ivanios wanted to go to heaven, that's why he joined the Catholic Church" and "Non-Catholics go to hell because they rebel against Christ's Vicar on earth, the successor of St Peter." Well, I proceeded to tell him how I thought Catholics were heretical for things like papal supremacy, Filioque, etc., etc. He was genuinely shocked that someone could have a negative view of the Catholic faith without being a fire-breathing, Mary-hating Pentecostal. Then there was the Malabar priest who intended on chrismating an Orthodox girl marrying a Catholic boy; I told the girl to tell him she was Orthodox, that the Catholics recognize our sacraments, that chrismation is unrepeatable for Catholics, and so she shouldn't have to convert. When that didn't work, she had to produce documents downloaded from the Vatican website, citations from the Catechism, and a "Knock It Off" letter from the local RC bishop in order to stop it. It makes you laugh at first, but then it's rather sad: if the clergy are like that, what do you do?

These are just my experiences, not something with which to draw definitive conclusions. But I know I'm not the only one who's experienced this stuff.

Wow, from my experience you could take all of your posts, substitute Ukraine, Ukranian, Slovak, Russian, Rusyn where appropriate for Indian and Persian references and you have my people's story.

I find it amazing that the Syro-Malabars can be so ignorant of those living beside them. I mean if we in America can know what is up how can they not?

We tend to stick together in America, despite the differences in faith, to promote some sort of community spirit within the larger culture. So we do a lot of things together: it's not uncommon, for example, for every Kerala Christian in the metro NY area to show up at someone's wake, even if they're not of your denomination, even if you don't know them, just because they're "us". Even so, it's not hard to stay in your little corner if you want (and it's much easier in India, I'd guess). I hope I've just had bad luck with them.

I find it amazing that the Syro-Malabars can be so ignorant of those living beside them. I mean if we in America can know what is up how can they not?

Deacon: Surely you and I know that with the sad history of religious strife among our people in the USA that in our own communities even today, there are more than a few BCC or ACROD faithful who know we are "different", but are surprised when they come into into one of your churches or my churches for a wedding, a funeral or just out of curiosity and are surprised that we share mostly the same rubric and the same chant tradition (excepting for the translation differences). This is even in the same town or neighborhood where the building are in close proximity. Why would Indians be any better informed?